Open Stack

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:16:34PM -0500, Ruby Loo wrote:
> On 10 November 2015 at 12:08, Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 11/10/2015 05:45 PM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In the last Ironic meeting [1] we started a discussion about whether
> >> we need to have a mid-cycle meeting for the Mitaka cycle or not. Some
> >> ideas about the format of the midcycle were presented in that
> >> conversation and this email is just a follow up on that conversation.
> >>
> >> The ideas presented were:
> >>
> >> 1. Normal mid-cycle
> >>
> >> Same format as the previous ones, the meetup will happen in a specific
> >> venue somewhere in the world.
> >>
> >
> > I would really want to see you all as often as possible. However, I don't
> > see much value in proper face-to-face mid-cycles as compared to improving
> > our day-to-day online communications.
> 
> 
> +2.
> 
> My take on mid-cycles is that if folks want to have one, that is fine, I
> might not attend :)
> 
> My preference is 4) no mid-cycle -- and try to work more effectively with
> people in different locations and time zones.

++ that was part of my thought process when I proposed not having an
official midcycle.

Another idea I floated last week was to do a virtual midcycle of sorts.
Treat it like a normal midcycle in that everyone tells their management
"I'm out for 3-4 days for the midcycle", but they don't travel anywhere.
We come up with an agenda, see if there's any planning/syncing work to
do, or if it's all just hacking on code/reviews.

Then we can set up some hangouts (or similar) to get people in the same
"room" working on things. Time zones will get weird, but we tend to
split into smaller groups at the midcycle anyway; this is just more
timezone-aligned. We can also find windows where time zones overlap when
we want to go across those boundaries. Disclaimer: people may need to
work some weird hours to do this well.

I think this might get a little bit bumpy, but if it goes relatively
well we can try to improve on it for the future. Worst case, it's a
total failure and is roughly equivalent to the "no midcycle" option.

// jim